Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ted Cruz shocks Texas political establishment, crushes David Dewhurst
Dallas Morning News ^

Posted on 07/31/2012 10:38:01 PM PDT by Arthurio

AUSTIN — Ted Cruz, the top appellate lawyer turned tea party favorite, shocked the political establishment Tuesday, grabbing the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate and virtually guaranteeing that he’ll be Texas’ first Hispanic senator.

Cruz handily defeated Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in a Republican runoff for the seat of U.S.

(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...


TOPICS: US: Texas
KEYWORDS: cruz; teaparty; tx2012
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 last
To: Catsrus
Do you know how ridiculous you sound? Do you honestly want tanks rolling through the streets of our American cities firing on the citizens?

I'm sorry to hear that you have such a low opinion of your fellow Americans in uniform.

If the S ever HTF, our brothers and sisters in the military will side with us - not the corrupt, treasonous bastards in our government.

101 posted on 08/01/2012 12:04:11 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
If one doesn’t,t vote FOR the choice we have, then one is voting for OBAMA......it,s that simple.

Show me how my failure to vote for Mittens mathematically adds a single additional vote to Obama's total. You can't do it. You're simply repeating an illogical talking point of the fear lobby.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I will not be cowed, browbeaten, coerced, bullied, or shamed into voting for a man who has defended, supported, and even mandated left-liberal policies that run exactly counter to everything conservatives (like me) believe in.

I know you feel it's more important to 'win' an election than stand your ground on our sacred American principles. It's ok. I'm not demanding that everyone maintain their personal honor and integrity here. I understand that the majority are too afraid of Obama to stand and fight, and would rather trust an abject liberal with an R velcroed to his sleeve to make it all better.

Just don't ask me to throw away the one thing that no one can take from me.

102 posted on 08/01/2012 12:26:26 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
but then neither were McCain or Obama eligible to the presidency and that didn't bother the Republican or Democrat leadership.

Any line of reasoning which leads to the conclusion that McCain is not eligible is obviously crackpot nonsense. The Constitution does not define "natural born", but the common understanding is that it means "entitled to citizenship by birth". That would include McCain, Obama, and Cruz.

From a Congressional Research Service report published last November, cited by Fred Thompson in a recent article defending Rubio's eligibility:

Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

I agree with Senator Thompson's conclusion, that "we have an election coming up, folks. May I suggest that we resist the temptation to chase every rabbit that comes down the trail and focus, instead, on that?"

103 posted on 08/01/2012 12:30:15 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
Show me how my failure to vote for Mittens mathematically adds a single additional vote to Obama's total. You can't do it.

Obviously, it doesn't. But it does increase the probability that Obama's total will turn out to be highest. Remember, Billy Jeff won in 1992 with only 43% of the popular vote. If you fail to vote for the GOP nominee in November, you are part of the problem.

I understand that the majority are too afraid of Obama to stand and fight, and would rather trust an abject liberal with an R velcroed to his sleeve to make it all better.

That statement makes no sense unless you are proposing to wage Civil War II.

104 posted on 08/01/2012 12:46:32 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
Upcoming primaries/elections will be greatly guided by those Dewhurst endorsements.

You bet they will. The lines between those who truly believe in our timeless American principles, and those who only pay lip service to them, are being drawn more clearly with every passing election.

The establishment has to realize at some point that the insurgency on the right is not going away. We're also winning the majority of the races where a GOP insider is running against a Tea Party candidate. Their days of maintaining control of the party are numbered, whether they've admitted it to themselves or not.

105 posted on 08/01/2012 12:50:37 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
"The Constitution does not define “natural born”, but the common understanding is that it means “entitled to citizenship by birth”. That would include McCain, Obama, and Cruz."

Of course Cynwoody, your activities in support of a living Constitution are familiar. For you, and to illustrate the sophistry with which we have become so familiar at FR, tell me what terms are defined in the Constitution? See if you can find the one. The Constitution was explicitly written to use our common-law, not English Common Law, or one of the variants of British Common law, since Britain has no Constitution.

Instead of referring to “The weight of legal and historical authority...”, by which Cynwoody is probably referring to the Democratic Underground or Open Society Institute, why not refer for common law to founder, framer, and our greatest chief justice, John Marshall, who said:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Or for the case which turned common law into precedent, and which was cited by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark precisely for its definition of natural born citizen, since Wong Kim, born on our soil of domiciled, but not citizen parents, was not deemed a natural born citizen, but a native-born citizen, Minor v. Happersett:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

McCain was Obama’s guarantee against Republican challenge. His presumed validation was sought by members of Obama’s campaign committee, Clare McCaskill, in two Senate actions, S. 2678, February 2008, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’, which failed to pass, and S. Res 511, a resolution with no weight of law claiming that because he was born to citizen parents, the fact that the Canal Zone was unincorporated territory in 1936 should be overlooked. Every US Senator signed S.Res 511 in which Judge Michael Chertoff said:

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”

Senator Thompson did not suggest ignoring the Constitution. Accepting the de facto redefinition of natural born citizen means that any anchor baby is eligible to run for president, and that is absolutely not what our framers intended. We had a new nation with a great many, some say a majority, who still held allegiance to the King of England. Only the president was required to have been born to parents who fought for our independence, or who later were sworn citizens with sole allegiance to our republic. We won't forget because we have hundreds of documents and dozens of supreme court cases that confirm the common law meaning of natural born citizens. Naturalization was left first to the sovereign states, and then to Congress to define, which they clearly did in the 14th Amendment, and which never mentioned natural born citizens.

The Congressonal Research Serice papers will live as an example of the depth of corruption possible in government. It carefully avoids the clear statements of four chief justices and rests upon comments by the minority in Wong Kim Ark, avoiding the citation and quotation of the definition, quoted above, by Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett. There are in fact three Congressional Research Service papers and they are each sophomoric effort to cloud the issue. The cite an Indiana State court for interpretation of the US Constitution. Readers should read only original sources, or the few lawyers writing honestly and citing the words of framers and founders.

Would our framers have written qualification for our president to permit the child of royalists, born on our soil, but who fought for or supported the King, to become president? Only the president's qualifications are stipulated because each sovereign state had its definition for who were citizens, and that needed to be negotiated in Congress - Article 1 Section 8, ...an Uniform rule for Naturalization. A natural born citizen, as explained in our nation's first law book at our first law school, William and Mary, created by Thomas Jefferson in 1779, is "born on the soil to citizen parents". John Marshall studied law at William and Mary, and cited Vattel's Law of Nations as the most concise source for the definition, which he repeated in The Venus, 12 US 253, and repeated dozens of time, including by 14th Amendment principal author John Bingham as he explained his amendment to the House in 1866.

People will learn their history Cynwoody, in spite of your efforts to confuse them.

106 posted on 08/01/2012 1:54:53 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Did you graduate from GRADE SCHOOL??? If you can’t figure out that a vote for a third party or stay home and not vote is a vote FOR OBAMA, I can;t help you with simple math.

Geesh, Freepers used to be the SMARTEST.


107 posted on 08/01/2012 2:43:55 PM PDT by Ann Archy ( ABORTION...the HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
Did you graduate from GRADE SCHOOL??? If you can’t figure out that a vote for a third party or stay home and not vote is a vote FOR OBAMA, I can;t help you with simple math.

Instead of yelling at me, how 'bout you answer the challenge, and SHOW me mathematically how Obama gains a single vote from someone who doesn't vote for Mittens.

I'm sure your simple math skills are up to test.

108 posted on 08/01/2012 3:10:47 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

“They’ve been quite successful, too. They’ve now built a virtual army of racist, hard left clones, who are programmed to destroy everything normal Americans believe in, and to supplant our entire culture with a Marxist totalitarianism.

I find it ironic that the vast majority of the ‘racism’ coming at my white daughter and black son in law is from the left. In each instance to date that they have told me about, it comes from the left. And it’s filled with hate and vitrol.

She tells me that her friends always tell her ‘don’t go here or there because of all the ‘racists’ but ‘those’ places are where they encounter no problems. It’s always the ‘tolerant’ places and with the ‘tolerant people’ where the BS happens.

That was exactly what she expected to experience when she got married and it is exactly what happened. By the very people she expected it from. Liberals. And anyone thinking it’s not an organized effort needs to read the history of who it was that organized the Klan. And WHY they organized it. It’s the same people today. And a lot of the same tactics as well. Just adapted to a modern scenario.


109 posted on 08/01/2012 7:31:24 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

Funny you mention your daughter and her husband only getting real grief about their interracial marriage from libs. My wife and I have the exact same experience.

You want to see prejudice? Look no further than your closest liberal enclave.


110 posted on 08/01/2012 9:41:25 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

It basically goes like this from what they tell me.

At a lib filled place they hear:

“I think it’d great that despite blablablabla RACEblablablaHATEblablabla...” and on and on bringing up everything ‘wrong’ just so the libs can say for their friends to hear how PC they are about the ‘brave’ couple.

Around militant black women they get”

“That damn hiyella had to go get him a white bitch” and you know where the rest of THAT story goes.

And around “hateful intolerant bigots” (AKA normal people) people they get:

“Hey, want a beer?”


111 posted on 08/01/2012 10:00:58 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Apparently, you are ignorant of studies done and how people react to orders given them. I suggest you do some research and then get back with me.

The military does what it is told.


112 posted on 08/01/2012 10:04:01 PM PDT by Catsrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

I,ll go slow for you. You have a vote and Joe Democrat has a vote....He votes for Obama and you stay home or you throw away your vote on someone who has NO chance.........WHICH vote will actually count??? the ONLY vote that counts is the Joe Democrat vote.


113 posted on 08/02/2012 3:03:33 AM PDT by Ann Archy ( ABORTION...the HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
You have a vote and Joe Democrat has a vote....He votes for Obama and you stay home or you throw away your vote on someone who has NO chance.........WHICH vote will actually count?

Not so fast. I've asked you twice now, to explain with simple mathematics, how a vote for someone other than your candidate can add a single vote to Obama's total.

You've failed again to explain how that mathematically works. You made the claim that voting third party or staying home, was a vote for Obama, and I'm asking you to back it up by showing how the math works.

Frankly, you can't, because it's a specious, fear-mongering claim that you Romney supporters are using to bludgeon others into voting FOR your guy. It's not possible to vote FOR Obama by voting for someone else, as you would have us believe. That can only be done by directly casting a vote FOR him.

You either fundamentally misunderstand how this works, or you're trying to scare or bully people into casting their votes how YOU want them to.

If Romney can't inspire enough people to give him their trust, then he won't receive enough votes to beat Obama. It's that simple. Shouting at doubters, and beating them over the head with crooked logic won't win him a single additional vote.

114 posted on 08/02/2012 11:24:21 AM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson